From Chris: A happy update! (Oct 20th)

[garion333]

I'm glad to see you've had two really good days in a row! That's awesome and your hard work is coming through.

I do, however, want to be a little bit negative about something:

they've really thought it through from the look of their 160-page design document

Why do you guys continue to promote your design doc as if people have any idea about what they are or why they should care? I get that you're super proud of the work you've put into that, but I don't see how marketing a Google doc filled with ideas is a great way to sell a game. I've yet to see someone play a game, love it and then talk about the great design doc they had. Maybe game devs do, but lay people don't.

I realize I'm not the first to say this, but I keep seeing the design doc being pimped and I'm not sure it comes off as the cool thing you think it is. I mean, you know who else has a giant design doc? A ton of failed projects. The proof is in the pudding and you keep touting the instructions.

[estyles]

Why do you guys continue to promote your design doc as if people have any idea about what they are or why they should care?

You don't get a great game without a great design.  You just don't.  The coding and testing and art and bug-fixing are all the hard implementation work that goes into the game, but the core of whether or not it's a good game is in the design.  I've seen plenty of kickstarters succeed and then fail to deliver a great product because elements of design that one might assume were already handled ended up being missed or handled (poorly) late in the development process after the campaign was already funded.  I've also seen kickstarters that failed to fund because potential backers wanted some evidence of design attention prior to backing (so they wouldn't end up with a project that was funded but not well thought-out).  Tons of board-game kickstarters have potential backers asking Day 1 to see the rules before they back.  The projects that have that documentation available seem to be better planned in general, and from what I've seen are more likely to fund.  The projects that refuse to show the rules (often out of some sort of "proprietary" argument), either fail to fund, or seem more likely to fund but end up in shambles.  Sometimes they deliver a lackluster product, sometimes they deliver extremely late, sometimes they fail to deliver at all.

You might back a project based on a flashy video or some art, but a lot of people want to see the nitty gritty of the design.  Or they want to know that it has at least been worked on, due to getting burned on previous kickstarters.  Even someone like me - I trust Arcen and don't really have the time or desire to read the 160-page design document, but I am impressed by the amount of planning that has gone into it, and the fact that it exists should be a major selling point.

[garion333]

I don't particularly disagree with anything you just said, but I still don't think touting the design document is good marketing for a video game. For board games the rules are essential. The design doc is not an essential part of video game ownership and/or enjoyment. I have never seen one, say, given as a backer reward. Art? Sure. Literature? Sure. Design doc? Nope.

It may be a cherry on top for those who are interested, and while it is certainly cool that they have a ton of ideas and have thought about this game a lot, pimping the design doc is probably only a selling point for the hardcore fans of AI War. People don't want to be told things, they want to be shown things. The KS got better at that, but right now there's only one video showing new things (zoom).

Pimping the size of the design doc probably also play into people's fears about overscope and inability to deliver the project (a la Star Citizen, a double edged sword example if there ever was one).

[jenya]

Some people would not read design doc for a simple reason - to avoid possible spoilers.

[Misery]

Part of the reason for the design-doc thing, I think, is transparency.   The idea being that if a backer has particular questions about what the game will be like... particularly those backers that have played the first game... they can look into the design document to see the answer.  And the thing is designed well.... it's not explaining things in a super obtuse way or anything, and a quick search will instantly find you the info you want.   For example if you want to see if a specific unit or mechanic is still in the game, or perhaps in there but altered, it only takes a second to find it and individual bits like that are usually short and to the point.

With a lot of kickstarters and early access games, there's NO transparency.  Backers are left with a million questions, unsure about what direction the game is going to take and what it might be like.   For those that like having a lot of info, this makes it much, much harder to make a decision.  You can only get so much out of a trailer and a basic description.

[Sounds]

Part of the reason for the design-doc thing, I think, is transparency.   The idea being that if a backer has particular questions about what the game will be like... particularly those backers that have played the first game... they can look into the design document to see the answer.  And the thing is designed well.... it's not explaining things in a super obtuse way or anything, and a quick search will instantly find you the info you want.   For example if you want to see if a specific unit or mechanic is still in the game, or perhaps in there but altered, it only takes a second to find it and individual bits like that are usually short and to the point.

With a lot of kickstarters and early access games, there's NO transparency.  Backers are left with a million questions, unsure about what direction the game is going to take and what it might be like.   For those that like having a lot of info, this makes it much, much harder to make a decision.  You can only get so much out of a trailer and a basic description.

That's sums it up, but it also leads to the question of whether you're targeting the types of backers you actually need to get it over the line?

Not sure if it would work here, but early buy-in is crucial and requires several types of documents to get traction and agreement.

For example when writing proposal responses, you generally create three types of documents:

• 1-2 Page Summary Proposal
• 1-10 Page High Level Design Proposal
• 1 - X Page Detailed Design Proposal

For this kickstarted, most of the this content exists - it just hasn't been extracted / formalised. The first two types really need separate documents and be prominent for wider targeting of potential backers. Think of it in terms of people who are time poor and/or don't have the time/desire to wade through large documents.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not sure if this applies for games, but when someone is collectively asking for $300K they need to provided proof in a clear and concise manner. At this stage we've got a lot of (great) details, but I'm not sure we're getting to the AI War fans who don't actively play the title anymore.

[Captain Jack]

Part of the reason for the design-doc thing, I think, is transparency.   The idea being that if a backer has particular questions about what the game will be like... particularly those backers that have played the first game... they can look into the design document to see the answer.  And the thing is designed well.... it's not explaining things in a super obtuse way or anything, and a quick search will instantly find you the info you want.   For example if you want to see if a specific unit or mechanic is still in the game, or perhaps in there but altered, it only takes a second to find it and individual bits like that are usually short and to the point.

With a lot of kickstarters and early access games, there's NO transparency.  Backers are left with a million questions, unsure about what direction the game is going to take and what it might be like.   For those that like having a lot of info, this makes it much, much harder to make a decision.  You can only get so much out of a trailer and a basic description.

That's sums it up, but it also leads to the question of whether you're targeting the types of backers you actually need to get it over the line?

Not sure if it would work here, but early buy-in is crucial and requires several types of documents to get traction and agreement.

For example when writing proposal responses, you generally create three types of documents:

• 1-2 Page Summary Proposal
• 1-10 Page High Level Design Proposal
• 1 - X Page Detailed Design Proposal

For this kickstarted, most of the this content exists - it just hasn't been extracted / formalised. The first two types really need separate documents and be prominent for wider targeting of potential backers. Think of it in terms of people who are time poor and/or don't have the time/desire to wade through large documents.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not sure if this applies for games, but when someone is collectively asking for $300K they need to provided proof in a clear and concise manner. At this stage we've got a lot of (great) details, but I'm not sure we're getting to the AI War fans who don't actively play the title anymore.

Now, do you mean that we're not getting THROUGH to them, or that we're not getting them? Because I think that we ARE activating defunct AI War fans, but only once they hear about us in the first place. Same problem we've had from the start.

[Sounds]

...
Now, do you mean that we're not getting THROUGH to them, or that we're not getting them? Because I think that we ARE activating defunct AI War fans, but only once they hear about us in the first place. Same problem we've had from the start.

Probably wasn't as clear as I should have been. Sorry about that.

What I mean is; if a person stumbles into finding AI War on kickstarter, and has little to no interest in the original game, a nudge in the right direction is crucial to spark further interest if they're still sitting on the fence.

A full design document is an uphill sell, if what is provided is too impenetrable to non-core AI War fans. Hence the idea is to present a shorter version to pique interest, rather than using a brick to crack a walnut (so to speak).

[Cyborg]

I wonder if we are dealing with three groups of people.

A whole lot of people who purchased the original, but barely played it or not at all.
Some people who played it and either don't care much about it anymore or never did.
Players who liked the game.

And for the first two groups of people, I don't think the videos are enough. They don't show the battles or the mechanics. That's already been said.

Most backers probably don't read support documents. They read the kickstarter page and that's it. I thought that ~$300,000 was a little bit much for a kickstarter. I was thinking 120,000. All of this transparency but no information on where the money goes (not that it should be shared, but it's a surprising number). If the company is bleeding that much, that fast… Well, this studio is probably going to get lean very quickly.

Just my backseat driving again, but all of you moderators are really doing a disservice to Chris, although he's the one that put you there.

[Misery]

Just my backseat driving again, but all of you moderators are really doing a disservice to Chris, although he's the one that put you there.

.....What?

We didn't do anything.  What are you talking about?

[Logorouge]

All of this transparency but no information on where the money goes (not that it should be shared, but it's a surprising number).

If only the kickstarter page had a giant budget pie chart to indicate that info... (You should check the kickstarter page again)

[Cyborg]

All of this transparency but no information on where the money goes (not that it should be shared, but it's a surprising number).

If only the kickstarter page had a giant budget pie chart to indicate that info... (You should check the kickstarter page again)

I'm talking about, labor, supplies, operating expenses, that kind of thing. In my head, I'm thinking about okay, blue is full-time, Chris is full-time, Keith is full-time. Labor has to be the biggest cost, and over how many months. And presumably, subscription fees for their software, etc. And with this game allegedly having a playable build by May, that's how many months of development? 8? At what point people are moving off the project? I don't know how the division is done, that's just a really big number for a game that has traditionally benefited from the profit long after the initial release. And that number is far higher than most indie developers, I would imagine. These developers and their artists deserve to make bank. I cheer for their profit. But I'd rather that happen based on the success of the product with a modest income for the development. And if it is based on the success of the product, they might have more incentive to rein in some of the problems over the last two years. Of course, with the lack of success lately, that's probably a tough sell.

And Misery, I'm talking about the echo chamber that I see in the various posts going all the way back to stars beyond reach. I've been a part of many organizations, and I have to say that one of the worst things is when you develop the echo chamber. It prevents you from taking your medicine, so to speak. Or rather, it just delays the sickness. Eventually, the truth is revealed and reality sets in. Don't believe me? I refer you to stars beyond reach and raptors. You see, there's more to community than just everyone cheerleading and marching in a straight line. I've never been able to do that.

It's the inbreeding of ideas, if you will.

[lessster]

All of this transparency but no information on where the money goes (not that it should be shared, but it's a surprising number).

If only the kickstarter page had a giant budget pie chart to indicate that info... (You should check the kickstarter page again)

I'm talking about, labor, supplies, operating expenses, that kind of thing. In my head, I'm thinking about okay, blue is full-time, Chris is full-time, Keith is full-time. Labor has to be the biggest cost, and over how many months. And presumably, subscription fees for their software, etc. And with this game allegedly having a playable build by May, that's how many months of development? 8? At what point people are moving off the project? I don't know how the division is done, that's just a really big number for a game that has traditionally benefited from the profit long after the initial release. And that number is far higher than most indie developers, I would imagine. These developers and their artists deserve to make bank. I cheer for their profit. But I'd rather that happen based on the success of the product with a modest income for the development. And if it is based on the success of the product, they might have more incentive to rein in some of the problems over the last two years. Of course, with the lack of success lately, that's probably a tough sell.

And Misery, I'm talking about the echo chamber that I see in the various posts going all the way back to stars beyond reach. I've been a part of many organizations, and I have to say that one of the worst things is when you develop the echo chamber. It prevents you from taking your medicine, so to speak. Or rather, it just delays the sickness. Eventually, the truth is revealed and reality sets in. Don't believe me? I refer you to stars beyond reach and raptors. You see, there's more to community than just everyone cheerleading and marching in a straight line. I've never been able to do that.

It's the inbreeding of ideas, if you will.

Just full ack!

Although I am a day one backer (because I think that AI War classic is one of the best real-time strategy games ever made) and although I really really really want AI War 2 happen, I must admit that I couldn't agree more. “Echo chamber“ may sound a little harsh, but it's getting it to the point. It is putting the whole drama in a nutshell, really.

[Pepisolo]

Just my backseat driving again, but all of you moderators are really doing a disservice to Chris, although he's the one that put you there.

As one of the mods that is supposedly doing a disservice to Chris -- presumably!? -- I don't really know what you're talking about, Cyborg. That might be because I'm the weirdo who mainly just hangs around in the Starward Rogue forum and occasionally trashes the odd spambot, though. I haven't really kept up with all the AI War 2 threads, but didn't Misery recently actually come out agreeing with you that announcing Reverse AI War was a bad idea?

Since I've been tarred with this accusation of, let's simplify things by calling it cheerleading, I feel obligated to make a defence. Over the years on this forum I've butted heads many many times with Chris. One time I actually probably even took things a little too far, and things got slightly out of hand. Going back to the SBR period, I wasn't a mod then, and I was actually off the forum for the whole of that process, only coming back to the forum after the cancellation, I think. I find it hard to believe that the failure of that project was due to too many cheerleaders. Chris just unfortunately wasn't up to the job of bringing together all the various pieces for such an ambitious project. Raptor? OK, I wasn't against Raptor once it was announced, mainly because it seemed like a reasonably small project for Chris to focus on, to help get him back into a good frame of mind after the whole SBR debacle, and to help develop tools for their next 3D projects (including AI War 2). After how badly that went, though, I'm sure Chris wished he had listened to you on that one. Good call, it's not something I predicted.

I think that maybe you're exaggerating this echo chamber effect, and trying to shift too much blame away from Chris himself. Is there really anything anyone could've said to prevent what happened with Stars Beyond Reach?

[Dominus Arbitrationis]

Everyone please remember to stay calm and polite. There is no benefit to getting riled up over this.

Everyone makes mistakes. Chris included. And I'm certain that he would have definitely changed things if he knew how they were going to turn out, but at the time all the data was solid and pointed to the games being successful. Yes, people were getting hyped and "cheerleading", but even if everyone shot down Chris' ideas, he probably still would have gone through with them since the market seemed like it was going to be good.